About the author: Hegumen Innokenty Pavlov is a kandidat of theology and teacher of exegesis of the New Testament in the St. Andrew Biblical Theological Institute and St. Thomas Aquinas College of Catholic Theology.
As a professional church historian and theologian who has spent many years working both in ecclesiastical schools of the Moscow patriarchate and in its central apparatus (OVTsS) and actively participating in work of a number of commissions and in the preparation of a multitude of documents of a churchwide character, I can only express profound sympathy for the members of the Synodal Theological Commission with respect to this thankless task which has been thrust upon them by the obvious move with the goal of vengeance against the Moscow priest Georgi Kochetkov.
Which specific interests are behind all of this is a topic for another conversation which undoubtedly will be held in due time. What all has not been tried in regard to this, starting back in 1994. Finally it's the turn of the ultimate argument, the accusation of "heresy." The vanguard in this has been taken by St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Institute. The collection "Their judgment was prepared long ago" published last year for the indicated purpose has already received an exhaustive response on the part of the St. Filaret's Advanced Orthodox Christian School, which was founded by Fr Georgi, that left no stone upon another in the pitiful attempts of theological dilettantes, and which, it would seem, should have put them to rest.
But that wasn't the case. It's just a pity that the Synodal Theological Commission, which includes a number of worthy people who have, as well, a solid professional reputation, has been drawn into this unworthy game fated for a complete historic disaster. However this is not the first time that this commission has been forced to divert itself from review of serious problems of Orthodox theology to take up various rubbish like the infamous issue of INN, hearing on this matter from the same Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov who has cooked this all up with a mixture of unbridled obscurantism and no less unbridled ignorance.
But let's return to our topic. It is quite easy to understand the chairman of the theological commission, Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk, who asked the participants in the dispute submitted for the commission's judgment to refrain, while it is working, from public disputes and not to attract the attention of the mass media in order to put pressure on the commission. It should be noted that the Kochetkov side has respected this request while Fr Georgi's opponents have not, or more precisely, the most irrepressible of them. In doing so they have armed themselves with the very "vain worldly custom" of this age that has gotten the name of "Black P.R." Let's pay attention to one characteristic detail.
At the time when various Internet sites that in one way or another deal with ecclesiastical topics were providing information about the 9 March session of the presidium of the theological commission devoted to the case of Fr Georgi Kochetkov, the Internet site with the pretentious name "Pravoslavie.ru," whose owner is the famous script writer of the anti-Kochetkov campaigns of recent time, Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov, maintained silence throughout. Although one would wonder why some report was not given at the termination of the above-mentioned presidium, citing official sources, as was done by other media. If there were not some obvious circumstances, this could be explained by a simple concept. This became known from the informational reports based upon the explanations of the secretary of the theological commission, Fr Vladimir Shmaly, which must be viewed as a serious defeat for the anti-Kochetkovites from a professional point of view.
Judge for yourselves. The report that was composed on order from the patriarch himself by the commission reviewing the works of Fr Georgi Kochetkov, chaired by the venerable Moscow Archpriest Sergei Pravdoliubov, as well as Fr Georgi's response to it, had been presented to the theological commission long before. Nevertheless the commission "reached no decision," and its session was of an "interim nature." This means only one thing: the report obviously did not accomplish the assigned task (and could it?) and now the theological commission faces the sensitive problem of finding a way out of the complicated situation in a manner that saves its own face as well as that of the one who ordered this "draft."
Now let's get to the essence of the topic announced in the headline of these bitter notes. So long as "Pravoslavie.ru" was silent, the activity promoting the anti-Kochetkovite views in anticipation of the session of the presidium of the theological commission was displayed by Internet sites clearly friendly to it, "Strana.ru" and "Vesti.ru," where on 5 and 7 March material was published by reporters who were previously unknown among journalists who write on ecclesiastical and theological topics, some Taratorkin and Nikolsky, respectively. One does not have to be a profound expert in what is called contemporary Russian church life in order to understand whose ears perk up to such a sentence as the one echoed by Nikolsky: "The outcome of the synodal commission will be positive from the point of view of patristic Orthodoxy only on condition that its decision will be based on a harshly negative assessment of the catechetical works of Fr Georgi." Again one need not be a profound textual analyst to see here the handwriting of the infamous Moscow script writer in cassock who is practicing black PR not for the first time but apparently among his new spiritual children.
The above-mentioned publications evoked a natural reaction from the
press service of the Presentation brotherhood headed by Fr Georgi Kochetkov,
which correctly assessed them as attempts to put pressure on the presidium
of the theological commission in anticipation of its session. This was
discussed in NGR
(14 March 01) in connection with the results of that session by Managing
Editor Maksim Shevchenko. And then two days later, on 16 March, on the
"Strana.ru" site there was a report by a certain Dmitry Safonov claiming
"Media
(i.e. "Strana" and "Vesti") did not exert pressure on theological commission."
Well what can one say to this "pitiful murmur of justification"? Just this:
"an uneasy conscience betrays itself." (tr. by PDS, posted 4 April 2001)
AUDACITY UNWORTHY OF THEOLOGICAL DISPUTES
The key to Fr Kochetkov's doctrinal "system" is faith in his special
prophetic charisma.
by Priest Vladimir
Shmaly
NG-religii,
28 March 2001
We cannot publish in full the special opinion of Fr Vladimir Shmaly because of its length, but we are trying to give readers his basic ideas.
In a note added to the basic text of the document Fr Vladimir says that since he learned late about his participation in the commission on the theological investigations of Fr Georgi Kochetkov and participated only on 18 October, when the text of the conclusion had been, in the main, prepared, he warned that "the level of my knowledge of the matter being investigated, as presented to me, is insufficient to be able to be in solidarity with the prepared text of the conclusion. Nevertheless, since I have been able to read through the basic works constituting the corpus of works being analyzed by the commission, I consider it necessary to call the attention of the commission to my strong preliminary perceptions."
Then he says that "from the instructions of His Holiness it does not follow in complete clarity just what the commission was supposed to analyze, whether the whole theoretical aspect of the activity of Fr Georgi Kochetkov including the doctrinal bases of his practice or just his published works. It is quite obvious that the case still should deal with published works, but at the same time, where possible, it should conduct an analysis as well of the theological and doctrinal premises of his system and activity as a whole."
Point three notes that "among the works published by Fr Georgi there are no works that can be called theological investigations in the full sense of the word." At the same time "it is hard to judge whether he has experience in independent scholarly theological analysis and critical scholarly systematized work. . . . This is by no means just a casual question if one considers that Fr Georgi offered to the world nothing more nor less than a new attempt at presenting the teaching of the church as well as novel recommendations regarding the preparation for conducting and the conduct of the sacraments of baptism and anointing. Uponn the answer to this question will depend also the method of the final assessment of his activity as a whole."
Further Fr Vladimir says that to the extent that "his 'system' has a solid academic basis, then discussion of his works should be conducted in the field of theological discourse and methods of academic dispute." In the meantime "reviewing Fr Georgi's affirmations even as theologoumena within the bounds of some kind of hypothetically existing system is not possible and all of his innovations should be considered to be without theological basis and as such transcending the bounds of academic theological tradition." At the same time "there is no necessity to conduct every time a special theological investigation in order to demonstrate by argment just why Fr Georgi is incorrect. It is enough to show the fact of a departure of Fr Georgi's affirmations from church doctrine and to take account of the fact that Fr Georgi has not assumed the burden of providing basis for his innovations."
In points 4-16 Fr Shmaly analyzes Fr Georgi's teaching regarding catechesis which is one of the fundamental issues defining the context of his works. In point ten it is noted that "at the first and second 'stages' of catechesis there exists a distinct 'rule' or 'creed.'" After analyzing them Fr Vladimir comes to the conclusion that "the first 'creed' speaks of the One God, Creator of the world and humanity, and about the Messiah Jesus, whom God made Savior and Judge of the world. Church dogmas about the Triune God and the person of the Lord Jesus Christ are absent from the creed. The Holy Spirit is mentioned in passing, in connection with the anointing of Jesus. The second creed also does not gave clear church teaching about the Most Holy Trinity. . . . In other words, both of these creeds admit of an interpretation that the church has characterized in its time as heresy."
Point 14 says that whether there exists a "creed" for the third level can be judged from Fr Georgi's works and a review of them leads to the following conclusion: "It was possible to hope that the incompleteness of the creeds of the 'first' and 'second' levels would be made up at the 'third,' when those being taught will be finally given the teaching of the church. But alas. At the summit of the entire multi-stage training system of Fr Georgi there is found not church doctrine but a substitute he has created to replace (apparently because he thinks it outdated) the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the determinations of councils and teaching of the holy fathers, which is an extremely strange 'dogmatic work' by Fr Georgi himself."
Points 17-19 review Fr Georgi Kochetkov's statement for "NG-religii," "Indeed I can affirm and subscribe to all of this." Fr Vladimir writes: "It is an important matter of principle in this statement to take into account his affirmation of his loyalty to the holy patristic heritage which is extremely important in light of the criticism directed against him over the nearly complete absence of patristic material in his dissertation and catechesis," and "how Fr Georgi understands his adherence to the holy fathers can be seen in his address 'Contemporary theology.' Fr Georgi wisely prefers to support his position with the opinions of authoritative Orthodox theologians--Archpriest Alexander Schmemann and Archpriest John Meyendorff."
Point 20: "That is, if one follows Fr Georgi's logic, then he does to a supreme degree support the 'holy patristic heritage,' repeating not the letter but the spirit of the fathers. Here, of course, a little doubt can creep in, whether just one attempt at 'creation of new language for the eternally new truth of Christ' is sufficient to put one for certain in 'spiritual continuity with the holy fathers,' but such doubt does not arise in Fr Georgi's case. Nowhere in his works can we find a shadow of doubt about their correctness."
Point 21: "Having established his right to create 'new language,' Fr Georgi develops his thoughts on theology without the aid of authoritative theologians."
Points 22-23 review the works of Fr Georgi on holy scripture and holy tradition. "Complete Christianity, one must think, consists of complete Christians, that is, those who have undergone complete catechesis and since under conditions of current scarcity it cannot be found other than with Fr Georgi, then it follows that complete Christianity is nowhere other than in Fr Georgi's community. . . . Fr Georgi does not simply mention it, he declares absolutely definitively the superiority of his community (Orthodoxy as Churches) over "Orthodoxy as a confession," that is, one should suppose, the Russian Orthodox church."
Point 24 maintains that "the climax of Fr Georgi's system is gnosis, 'esoteric Christianity,'" and, in his analysis, the conclusion: "It is possible to state the presumption that the key for the 'system' of Fr Georgi's teaching and for him personally is the confidence in the truthfulness of his teaching and faith in his possession of a special 'prophetic charisma.' A significant form of such self-understanding can be found in his 'Conversation about the mysticism of divine mystery' in which he practically likens himself to Moses leading the people (read, catechumens of the 'second level') to knowledge of God. St Gregory the Theologian might be able to make such a comparison, but this is simply audacity for Fr Georgi, inasmuch as he, as we have seen, has 'demonstrated' his continuity with 'the holy patristic spirit.'" (tr. by PDS, posted 4 April 2001)
We are publishing the conclusions reached by a commission of RPTs for a theological investigation of Fr Georgi Kochetkov . . . . Despite the prohibition of the most holy patriarch, the conclusions of the commission were posted on the Internet site reshenie.narod.ru and on 16 March they appeared on the site of the "Radonezh" Orthodox news agency. Although a week later they were removed from the site, we consider it necessary to inform our readers about the course of the investigation.
A theological commission was formed by order of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and all-Rus, in connection with numerous appeals to the Moscow patriarchate from priests and laity who are concerned about the theological studies of Fr Georgi Kochetkov, which in their opinion contradict Orthodox dogmatic belief, the traditions of the holy fathers, and the centuries-old traditions of the Russian Orthodox church, and who request the application of canonical measures for a study of this question. This commission, fulfilling the instructions of His Holiness, has analyzed the published theological studies of Fr Georgi Kochetkov and discussed them at sessions on 30 June, 10 July, 12 and 29 September, 10, 17, 18, 24, 25, and 31 October, and 8 and 15 November.
The commission came to the conclusion that Fr Georgi Kochetkov's published works contain a whole series of errors of a dogmatic, liturgical, and canonical character and adequately reflect the substance of his doctrinal teaching activity.
1. Contents of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and teaching about the Most Holy Trinity.
Fr Georgi Kochetkov's works not only do not confess the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox church as confirmed by the ecumenical councils and contained in the form, sense, and contents of the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed, but they also contain new creeds composed by Fr Georgi Kochetkov which omit the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity. Instead Fr Georgi Kochetkov has formulated teaching that differs from Orthodox teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The commission is convinced that Fr Georgi's use of such special (adapted) creeds for purposes of catechesis is entirely out of keeping with the traditions of the church.
In his teaching about the Holy Spirit, Fr Georgi Kochetkov shuns the dogmatic clarity of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. He designates the Holy Spirit as a certain divine breath which is always present in God but is not a person of the Holy Trinity, of the same substance as the Father. Such affirmations were made by the Macedonians (Pneumatomachi), who were condemned by the second ecumenical council. Fr Georgi Kochetkov equates the Holy Spirit with the notion of divine energies, designated by the pronoun "that;" these energies are "not God in Himself," but are "like God."
II. Teaching about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Theotokos
1. Fr Georgi Kochetkov's works that were reviewed distort the Orthodox teaching about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the form of his incarnation. According to Fr Georgi's teachings, the Lord Jesus Christ is a righteous man chosen by God whom he gradually adopted and endowed with extraordinary capacities, elevating him from earthly to heavenly existence.
2. According to Fr Georgi Kochetkov, the story of the birth of Christ is mythopoeic fantasy composed by the gospel writers Matthew and Luke. God adopted Jesus at the Jordan on the day of his baptism, Epiphany, and confirmed his selection and illumined him with divine light on Mount Tabor on the day of Transfiguraiton; he helped him bear the tortures on the cross and finally united with him in the Resurrection. "The Son of Man died; the Son of God arose."
3. Fr Georgi Kochetkov does not believe that the Most Holy Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. He does not believe that she conceived in her womb the Son of God from the Holy Spirit immaculately and virginally. From his statements it could follow that Joseph was the "physical" father of Christ. Such an opinion is consonant with adoptionism as taught by the ancient gnostic Cerinthus. Fr Georgi maintains that Mary was a righteous woman who bore a righteous man. She was not "ever virgin," that is, "before Christ's birth and after Christ's birth a virgin." Here Fr Georgi Kochetkov stands in contradiction to the second determination of the fifth ecumenical council and the first rule of the sixth ecumenical council which condemned Nestorianism and pronounced the Theotokos Ever Virgin.
III. Doctrine about the church
1. Fr Georgi Kochetkov believes in an invisible and intangible and "uniquely truly existing Church with a capital letter," which he sometimes designates vaguely "the world of God." All the others are earthly churches and not Churches. The boundaries of this invisible Church are known only to charismatics. They by twos and threes can testify to the existence of other people in this Church.
2. According to Fr Georgi Kochetkov's teaching, the apostolic succession of grace should be understood not literally but metaphorically and "spiritually." Orthodox bishops and presbyters may not possess this succession, but it could be present among protestants, Baptists, Quakers, monophysites, and other sincerely believing people. Also the Eucharist may be "performed" among them in all its necessary "fullness" and saving force, even if they merely break the bread and distribute the wine.
3. Fr Georgi Kochetkov thinks that Communion in the church is performed with consecrated bread and wine and not the Pure Body and True Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.
4. A feminine priesthood ("presbyteresses" and "deaconesses") not only is possible but is foreseen by Fr Georgi in the near future. Clerical functions and the sacraments can be performed in certain situations by laity and even women.
5. Fr Georgi maintains that sacraments performed by clerics of the Orthodox church should be supplemented: baptism with a proclamation or new baptism actually performed by a priest of the Kochetkov faith (i.e., actually rebaptism) and anointing conducted until the charismatics are convinced that the person anointed has received the gift of the "Holy Spirit," expressed in visible and tangible results.
6. Fr Georgi Kochetkov teaches that the ecumenical councils caused more harm than good and engendered large schisms and divisions; he has replaced several of the doctrinal decisions of the ecumenical councils, declaring them mistaken and outdated.
7. According to Fr Georgi's teaching, heresy is a positive phenomenon. There are good heresies ("alternate thinking") and destructive ones. A good heresy is new, fresh thought, expressed in the church, to which in time everybody becomes accustomed and it becomes common church teaching. In order to be a heretic one must be nearly a genius; unfortunately, Fr Georgi Kochetkov writes, our time is not heretical since there are no such geniuses.
8. Fr Georgi Kochetkov constantly counterposes his teaching to the teaching of the Orthodox church, which frequently has permitted his being accused of spreading a sectarian spirit that causes discord and confusion in general church life.
9. Fr Kochetkov is trying to create his own "church," with its own doctrine, ecclesiology, hierarchy, and religious practice, while formally remaining within the bosom of the Russian Orthodox church and pretending to his own legitimacy.
10. Fr Georgi Kochetkov thinks that worship services in the Russian language, besides helping to spread doctrine, have a second, no less and perhaps even more important mission: to demythologize church teaching which has become clogged "with mythological, improbable, and legendary forms of biblical, dogmatic, liturgical, traditional Christian thinking."
11. Fr Georgi Kochetkov not only casts doubt on the sanctity of some saints but even on the reality of their baptism.
12. For Fr Georgi Kochetkov, the criterion of truth is not the church but the conscience of the Christian who must test what happens in the church by its spirit and fruits.
IV. Teaching about good and evil and the spiritual world
1. Fr Georgi's views contain Manichaeism and dualism: the original existence in the created world of evil alongside good, Evil with a capital letter.
2. Fr Georgi does not recognize the personal existence of demons. A demon and demons are conventional names for something that does not exist, simply psychosomatic phenomena and anomalies. Here he categorically denies the possibility of demonic influence on people.
V. Interpretation of holy scripture
1. In his interpretation of holy scripture Fr Georgi Kochetkov creates his own distorted, on one hand, and extremely positivistic, on the other, version of events of biblical history.
2. Fr Georgi Kochetkov's catechesis maintains that the first man was "androgynous," that is, a being uniting in itself a man and woman simultaneously. The woman, according to his notions, had its own origination from human-like substance which was humanized in a strange ecstatic act of unification with Adam.
3. In his works Fr Georgi either is completely silent about miracles performed by our Lord Jesus Christ or he interprets some of them in a purely metaphoric manner, in a "spiritual," "symbolic," and not a literal sense.
VI. Teaching about immortality of the soul and eschatology
1. Fr Georgi Kochetkov preaches that "the belief that every person has from birth his own 'immortal soul' is pagan belief."
2. Fr Georgi Kochetkov paints a picture of retribution after death and the final fate of rational creatures in a spirit that is either the Origenistic theory of universal salvation or he teaches the total annihilation of the souls of sinners after their death.
From everything said above it follows
Georgi Kochetkov's works, which he has published in catechetical and doctrinal books, represent the construction of a theological system that in essential points departs from Orthodox teaching and contains a repetition of various heresies, which were condemned by councils, of Cerinthus, Paul of Samosata, Origen, Macedonus, and Nestorius. In essence, we confront here teachings that are similar to those which were condemned by the fathers of the third ecumenical coucnil in the seventh rule forbidding "formation of any other faith besides that which was defined by the holy fathers," under threat of unfrocking for clergy and anathema for laity. The seventh rule of the third ecumenical council states: "These things having been read, the holy council then decreed that no one should be permitted to offer any different belief or faith or to write or compose any other than the one defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea with the Holy Spirit. As for those who dare either to compose a different belief or faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatever, then, if bishops or clergymen, shall be deprived as bishops of their episcopate and as clergy of their clericate; but if they are laity they shall be anathematized. In an equally applicable way, if any persons be detected or caught, whether bishops or clergy or laity, in believing or teaching the things embodied in the exposition presented by Charisius the presbyter concerning the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God or the unholy and perverse dogmas of Nestorius, which have been subjoined, let them stand liable to the judgment of this holy and ecumenical council, that is, the bishop shall be deprived of his episcopate, and be left deposed from office, while the clergyman shall likewise forfeit his clericate. If, on the other hand, any such person be a layman let him be anathematized, as aforesaid."
The commission reached the following conclusions:
1. In his teaching Fr Georgi Kochetkov departs from Orthodoxy since his doctrinal system does not accord with the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox church, confirmed by the ecumenical councils and contained in the form, sense, and contents of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Fr Georgi Kochetkov departs not only from Holy Orthodoxy, but also from the teaching of a majority of other Christian confessions in which Christ is recognized as the Son of God, incarnated from the Most Holy Virgin Mary and made man, while for Fr Georgi Kochetkov the man Jesus of Nazareth became the Son of God by adoption. Failure to recognize our Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, "of one being with the Father," and the Holy Spirit as Lord and a person of the Holy Trinity, of one being and unseparated, also makes the teaching of Fr Georgi Kochetkov non-Orthodox.
2. In Fr Georgi Kochetkov's books the tradition of the holy fathers either remains unused or is subjected to criticism. The centuries-old traditions of the Russian Orthodox church, the spirit of its pastoral ministry, the treasure of its liturgical life, and the school of spiritual growth are undoubtedly alien to Fr Georgi Kochetkov and his adherents. In his theological system, the organization of pastoral ministry and the liturgical life of his parishes are invariably subjected to the influence of rationalism, on one hand, and on the other hand false charimaticism characteristic of various protestant denominations.
Chairman of commission: Archpriest Sergei Pravdoliubov, master of theology, professor of Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, head of department of liturgical theology of the St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Institute;
Members of commission: Archpriest Maksim Kozlov, kandidat of theology,
docent of Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy;
Priest Oleg Davydenkov, kandidat of theology, instruction of St. Tikhon's
Orthodox Theological Institute;
Priest Boris Levshenko, docent, head of department of dogmatic theology
of St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Institute;
Priest Konstantin Polskov, master of theology from Paris Theological
Institute, instructor of St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Institute;
Deacon Vladimir Shmaly, kandidat of theology, instructor of Moscow
Ecclesiastical Seminary;
Petr Yurevich Malkov, kandidat of theology, instructor of St. Tikhon's
Orthodox Theological Institute.
Moscow, 15 November 2001
(tr by PDS, posted 3 April 2001)
A declaration of the press service of the "Presentation" educational and charitable brotherhood was published on 2 April in the "Sobornost" Orthodox Internet magazine under the headline "Supporters of Kochetkov will still be silent." In commenting on this document the editors of "Sobornost" noted that despite the publication of the accusatory documents directed against Fr Georgi Kochetkov without the approval of the hierarchy, members of the "Presentation" brotherhood have stated that they have no intention of engaging in a public debate and, despite the actions of their opponents, they will not violate the instructions of Metropolitan Filaret, chairman of the Synodal Theological Commission.
Declaration
As is known, at the present time the Synodal Theological Commission is reviewing the works of Fr Georgi Kochetkov, Master of Theology from St. Sergius Orthodox Institute in Paris. This cannot do other than evoke sincere joy since now there is the hope for an objective review of this matter and the reaching of a just decision. Fr Georgi Kochetkov has for the first time received the possibility of officially answering questions that have arisen in connection with his works. Thus it can only be regretted that in the "NG-religii" newspaper of 28 March and shortly before that on the "Radonezh" and "Rechenie" Internet sites, despite the direct request of the head of the synodal commission, Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk, its working documents were published. The initiators of the publications, apparently, did not fully realize that they actually were provoking a parallel discussion of the problems that had arisen, which could hardly be competent and fully pertinent. No doubt, such a matter cannot be reviewed in a few days or even months, much less under difficult circumstances. At the present time the theological commission has at its disposal Fr Georgi Kochetkov's written responses which demonstrate in lack of a basis for all of the accusations that have been advanced. After the commission finishes its work and the unnecessarily emotional, polemical, and ecclesiastical political aspect of the whole affair disappears it will be possible to discuss in a constructive spirit all of the contradictions and misunderstandings (if such remain). It seems that it is just this sort of approach to the matter that would optimally facilitate a normal resolution of the problem which has been to a great extent artificially created, without violation of obedience and ecclesiastical peace, for the welfare of the whole Russian Orthodox church. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 April 2001)
Ali Viacheslav Polosin, an advisor to the chairman of the Council of Muftis of Russia, declared that "only with government respect for every one of the nations inhabiting Russia will a person feel at home in the homeland and not on occupied territory." Polosin, a former Orthodox priest and deputy of the Supreme Soviet of Russia who converted to Islam two years ago, made this statement at the first International Academic Symposium on "Problems of Preserving the Cultures and Religions of Small Nations and Ethnic Groups of the Russian Federation: Mountain Jews--History and the Present," which was held recently at the Russian Academy of State Service of the Russian presidential administration.
According to Ali Viacheslav Polosin, Russian Muslims are alarmed over the process of the formation of a new state ideology for Russia "in which the history of the federation is reduced to the history of the Muscovite principality and everything else is practically declared to be foreign." As an example the representative of the Council of Muftis of Russia pointed to the transformation of the anniversary of the Kulikovo battle into a Russian state holiday. Thereby, he noted, the state establishing a "holiday of victory over the Tatars," who now are citizens of the united country with full rights.
The history of the country, Ali Viacheslav Polosin declared, "should be viewed as the aggregate of the history of the people who inhabit Russia." Referring to the Mountain Jews, the speaker called them, along with other nations of the country "to prevent to slide of Russia into national chauvinism." He also called Muslims, Christians, and Jews "to conduct a dialogue on various levels," and not just within the confines of the official interreligious council of Russia. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 April 2001)
The upcoming visit by Pope John Paul II will exert a positive influence on the future of independent Ukraine and on the dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. This opinion was expressed by a representative of the Vatican in Ukraine, apostolic nuncio Nikola Eterovic, during a ceremony at the opening of a media center of the Catholic church in Kiev, the news agency ITAR-TASS reports.
In his opinion, the pope's visit to Ukraine planned for June will become a "great event not only for the church but also for all Ukraine," where almost five million Greek Catholics and one million adherents of the Catholic church live. Reponding to reporters' questions whether the pope's visit would facilitate the unification of the church in Ukraine, the Vatican representative expressed hope for the possibility of such a turn of events. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 April 2001)
POPE'S VISIT TO UKRAINE IS POLITICAL ACT--BISHOP IPPOLIT
strana.ru,
2 April 2001
The press secretary of the Union of Orthodox Citizens (SPG), Kirill Frolov, who deals professionally with the problems of Ukraine in the Institute of CIS Countries, talked about the upcoming visit of the Roman pope to Ukraine with Bishop Ippolit of Tulchin and Bratslav (Ukrainian Othodox church of the Moscow patriarchate). We produce excerpts from this interview with is published in its entirety on the site of the Presentation monastery.
--Your Excellency. We Orthodox understand very well that the upcoming visit of Pope John Paul II to Ukraine goes beyond the usual limits of interconfessional relations. However many secular people do not see in it anything especially bad--after all, the pope is widely respected in the world and an influential politician whose support would bring prestige to the leadership of any European country. Why has the Russian Orthodox church and its integral part, the Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate, spoken out categorically against this visit?
--The point is that this visit has been devised as a most important ideological and political act. Several years ago this visit was planned by the former minister of foreign affairs, B. Tarasiuk, who is an overt proponent of Ukraine's entry into NATO (he lobbied for this back when he was Ukrainian ambassador to the Benelux countries). Several years ago Kuchma first invited the pope, although he repeated this invitation after Tarasiuk's retirement. On the initiative of a man with a questionable reputation, Deputy Taras Chernovol (son of a leader of Uniate dissident nationalists, Viacheslav Chernovol) a public committee for planning the visit was created which has been patronized by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic (Uniate) church.
The new head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Liubomir Guzar, declared that by the time of the pope's visit he will conduct an internal reorganization with the goal of improving the evangelistic potential. It is significant that both schismatic structures, the so-called "Kiev patriarchate" and "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church" have supported the pope's visit, again demonstrating that they are merely satellites of the Greek Catholic church and have nothing to do with Orthodoxy.
John Paul's visit is intended as a demonstration of the historic triumph of Catholicism and the historic defeat of Orthodoxy, because it is southwestern Rus that has been the shield of Orthodoxy against militant Catholicism. This condition has become the foundation of its self-identity and the heart of its culture.
It is planned as well to turn the pope's visit not only into a confessional but also a cultural and civilizational triumph of Catholicism, the triumph of a new identity intended to crush the traditional Orthodox self-awareness of southwestern Rus--Little Russia. It is planned as the victory of the Galicia Ukrainian idea, the messianic idea of western Christian proselytism. Its ideologue, the Uniate Metropolitan Andrei Sheptitsky, stated this idea better than anybody at the beginning of the twentieth century: "Ukrainians are simply the weapon of divine providence, called to tear the Christian East out of the clutches of heresy (i.e., Orthodoxy--Bp. Iippolit) and settle it within the bosom of the Apostolic Throne (i.e. Vatican) and the European community." The pope is supposed to conduct in Ukraine the canonization of this Metropolitan Andrei Sheptitsky, the ideologue of the genocide of Galician russophiles at the turn of the century and the author of the sad analytical note for Austrian Emperor Franz Josef "On measures for separating Russian Ukraine from Russia." The most important measure of the "note" was the separation of the Kievan metropolia from the Russian Orthodox church and the creation of a "Kievan Galician patriarchate" and its gradual subordination to the Vatican.
I will quote the most important points of the Sheptitsky note: "Just as soon as the victorious Austrian army enters the territory of Russian Ukraine, we can solve the threefold task, the military, legal, and ecclesiastical organization of the territory so that these regions can be completely separated from Russia."
The tsar martyr Nicholas II made a very precise characterization of Sheptitsky when, becoming acquainted with Sheptitsky's activity, he called him a "viper." This is the kind of "saint" that the Latins soon will have! Apparently it is the pope's task to achieve the realization of Sheptitsky's testament. Certain the pontiff's visit will coincide with a new attempt to break up the Russian Orthodox church and create an "Independent Ukrainian church" by means of the interference of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who is known for his pro-Catholic orientation and who is called the "Trojan horse" of the Orthodox world, through unification of the schismatic groups, KP and UAPTs, and attempts to draw the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate into participation in this unification. Naturally such a unification would be absolutely illegitimate from an Orthodox canonical point of view. It will not be accepted not only by the Russian Orthodox church but also by the entire Orthodox world.
In posing your question you called the Roman pope a "respected man." Well, let me ask, why did this respected man, who recently decided to ask forgiveness of all sorts, Jews, American pagans, etc., honor the mayor of Lvov, Vasily Kuibid, with a Catholic medal exactly at a time when in Lvov were being conducted by pro-Nazi Galician groups massive pogroms and disorders (occasioned by the tragic death of the pop composer Igor Bilozir) that were accompanied with calls for the deportation of the Russian population of the city?
I am not saying anything about the more than 1,000 Orthodox churches in Galicia confiscated in the past five decades, about which His Holiness Patriarch Alexis has frequently spoken. The pope has not begun to apologize for all this.
Proponents of the papal visit, in particular Alexander Shchipkov in the Moscow newspaper "NG-religii" have put forward in this regard a completely cynical variant. (I am not surprised by the panegyrics to the Uniates and pope in the Lvov chauvinistic press, but I am shocked by the expression of similar views in the Moscow liberal press as well as by statement of those traitors to Orthodoxy like Archpriest Ioann Sviridov, on the pro-Catholic radio "Sophia" in Moscow. For those of us who have not lost our common Russian self-awareness,--Great, Little, and White Russia constitute Holy Rus--this was like a stab in the back.) So they are saying that the conflict between Orthodox and Greek Catholics in Galicia has supposedly ended since there are practically no "hot spots" remaining--churches threatened with confiscation. I think that such a point of view is propounded with a single goal--to confirm for good the results of the destruction of Orthodoxy in Galician Rus. We are told to accept these results of these massive seizures that were attended with massive beatings of Orthodox Christians and tear gas and clubs and the acknowledge the defeat of Orthodoxy. And the pope's visit is the result of that defeat. I categorically dissent from such a position. I believe the time will come when we will review on legal and just bases who should own the churches and who should be punished for the use of force and illegal actions. The church must be defended. . . .
--As is known, the president of Russia, despite unprecedented pressure, did not invite the pope to Russia. How do you view this act?
--In this case Putin acted as the national leader of the Orthodox Russian people. There cannot be any talk of the pope's visit to Russia. I have made sufficient arguments. President Putin, in contrast to the Ukrainian authorities, takes account of the point of view of the Russian Orthodox church and respects it. . . . (tr. by PDS, posted 2 April 2001)
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication
from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material
is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.